User talk:Jay-Sebastos/Archive 22

DYK for Richard Shephard
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Fair enough. it'll take me a while to find out how to do this though Furbally excuse me i am really sorry but i think that my comment was not vandalism, please revert your decision and put it back on NOW.
 * I am afraid it was vandalism. Please see WP:VANDAL for what is and isn't vandalism. Thanks. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Religious opinion page: Actually this was bet to be a page of debate NOT my personal views — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furbally (talk • contribs) 05:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand exactly what was meant. Unfortunately, WIkipedia is not a place for debate but rather an encyclopedia. Please see WP:FORUM. No need to worry - it takes a while to get used to things on the site! Jay-Sebastos (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
oi whyd u delete my post —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.132.128 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it was formatted incorrectly and was essentially covered anyways. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Kari.breezy blocked from afro latino list
Hi Jay-Sebastos! I am new to joining this site. I added information to a page called List of Afro-Latinos. The link is List_of_Afro-Latinos. You sent messages to me I am pasting below: Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The only info I added to this page was names of celebrities that have spoken out about being Afro-Latino. Please explain why I received warnings and was blocked. I am very new to this site and would appreciate as much explanation as possibly so that I can be sure to use this site appropriately.

Thanks in advance. Kari.breezy (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there Kari.breezy. You were obviously blocked from that page because despite having been warned by me and now even another user not to add unsourced information into articles about living people, you once again added unsourced information into an article, even though the page's title clearly stated not to. Please see Wikipedia's policy on BLP (Biographies of living people) for more information. You should find reliable secondary sources to back up what you edit into articles on Wikipedia - not just BLP. This helps to avoid libellous information about living people finding its way into articles, and for other non-BLP articles it helps to improve the credibility of the article since it can be checked by any reader or editor. Hope this helps. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a lot of contributions back to back. I didn't understand to check my messages/ your warnings immediately. That's why I continued to make changes. I saw the messages afterward. Please know that everything is not as obvious to a lot of us newbs. But I understand now and appreciate your response. It definitely helps. Take Care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kari.breezy (talk • contribs) 21:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hi Jay-Sebastos Please remove the tag you have put on article Pre Islamic scripts in Afghanistan now. Intothefire (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have done so. I have also rephrased some of the content. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi it's MF here. Well done on Wikipedia! Dust429 (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dust! Hope you're having a nice holiday. Saw your post on my wall lol. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

4 August 2010 reverting of userpage
Many thanks for spotting the IP vandalism that was attributed there; keep up the good work! Regards. Cs-wolves (talk)  22:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I don't like to see fellow British Wikipedians' pages vandalised. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jay Σεβαστός discuss  19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam
Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you're referring to in the title :) seems like a personal greeting :) but anyways you're very welcome and I'm sure you'll be a great admin.
 * It's semi-spam because everyone got a message, but not everyone's message was the same. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC
 * Lol - must have taken a while to pull that off :) good luck again.

Codex Iuris Canonici
Do you have any Codes of Canon Law (I read you have a library of Catholic books on WikiProject Catholicism)? Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 17:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IP fix
I've adjusted the block; try editing now and see if you can. –MuZemike 19:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Editing is now possible. I apologise for the persistent vandalism from this IP address. I think many of the students here find it amusing to vandalise Wikipedia. Thanks again. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Bebbington


The article Mark Bebbington has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Very little context.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses @  00:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I was thinking. Ignore the above. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Congrats. :)
This is for you. I noticed how fast you were reverting vandalism and I think you deserve it.


 * Thank you very much ShatteredSpiral for this kind gesture: you also seem to be doing a very good job! Thanks again. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiya
I think that because of the similarities in our account names, there might come times when we might receive messages for one another (not really likely, but possible). So, I thought I'd say hello. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok! Thanks for the message... Hello to you too! :) Jay-Sebastos (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thanks! It doesn't matter who gets the vandalism first - it's just the fact that it goes that is important. We're both doing a great job together! Jay-Sebastos (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha I know. Just out of curiosity, how do you do it? I mean I assume you use some sort of anti-vandalism program. If so, what do you use? Bped1985 (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if I'm using a Windows then I use Huggle, and if I'm using a Mac, I use Wikiguard. Give them a try! Jay-Sebastos (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am currently using Huggle, and don't have a Mac (though I'd love one). Thanks for the info! Bped1985 (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That's ME!
Read my talk page. Thanks. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3RR would be a problem here, so I won't do it again. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't realize it was your page. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing!
I'm not vandalizing! I just removed my OWN VOTE! --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Next time, instead of just deleting your supporting vote, put a strike through it and then either move over to neutral or to opposing. That's why I got a little confused! Happy editing... Jay-Sebastos (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Signature
You forgot yours here.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I am extremely forgetful about singing things off at times! Thanks for the reminder. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC) :D

Articles for Creation
Hello Jay-Sebastos, I believe this was a request for deletion rather than vandalism. I have CSDed the page as. Alpha Quadrant   talk    22:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alpha Quadrant ! The link here is dead so I'm not sure what is being specifically referred to in this case; sometimes I do things quickly and so it was probably a mistake. Apologies! Jay-Sebastos 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, the author had blanked the article and you reverted. I figured it was a mistake, so thought I'd ask. Usually I remove the Wikipedia talk namespace from huggle changes feed, because Huggle often mistakes major edits in AfC for vandalism. In the past I have made similar mistakes. Best, Alpha Quadrant    talk    15:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rabiu Ibrahim
Hello Jay

I have had my updates regarding Rabiu Ibrahim removed by you a few times even though everything I have added is referenced. I dont know how to contact you so I am trying this....

please can you reply to email_tony@rocketmail.com

Best

Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.201.18 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Tony. Unfortunately your edits (1) replaced a large amount of referenced content with a tiny bit of unreferenced content which does not sound at all encyclopedic or non-neutral (see WP:NPOV. (2) removed a large chunk of the text (3) added some dubious content from a forum which is not a reliable source at all. Hope this clarifies things. Please go ahead and put back any relevant content which is cited. Kindly see WP:CITE and WP:NPOV and WP:NOT for more info. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jay

Thank you for your swift reply and advice.

I have re edited Rabiu Ibrahims page and incorporated you advice in my edits. I have been editing Ibrahims page for a year now but recently someone else keeps deleting my edits even though the are 100% referenced. Can I politely ask that you please keep an eye on Rabiu Ibrahims page for Vandals and others looking to delete accurate information. Best, Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.201.230 (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work! I suggest you open your own account. I have made a few changes to the article: some grammatical and some stylistic, but in general it's looking good. I will certainly keep an eye on it. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jay

I will look into opening a account ASAP. Thanks for the swift clean up too. You are on point!! Kind Regards,

Tony

Hello Again Jay As you can clearly see, even after your edits, Rabiu Ibrahims page has again been reverted in a and well referenced content completely removed..... I dont know why the user always visits this page to delete vaild information? I have been editing Rabiu Ibrahims since last year and almost all the edits were contributed by myself. Now im starting to believe that theres some sort of ulterior motive. Please help. Best Tony

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.201.230 (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Hi there JAY, VASCO from Portugal here,

Even though you tried to accommodate him, we may have a problem with the anon editor in this player's article. He continues to engage in incredible POV and WEASEl words in the article (plethora of assists, etc), mixing past, present and future tense in same sentence, especially in the INTERNATIONAL CAREER section (i.e. "Ibrahim Rabiu has so far appeared for the Nigeria U-17 and U-20 sides a total of 13 times...", wrong especially when is U17 career is over and his U20 will soon be also). Another: "...With current National Team coach Samson Siasia claiming in the media in April 2010..". How well will "currently" look if a person reads the article in say, 4, 5 years (not to mention the capital letters in mid-sentence)? Not very well i reckon.

Also, i removed (but reinstated since) most of the REFS that came from "GOOGLE TRANSLATE", the language there seemed very poor, thus with poor quality for WP. Just have a look at the REF#15's title (Telstar proudly: "This is the Rabiu Ibrahim"). As i said in the beginning, i reinstated most of those to avoid any problems with the anon user.

Please have a look at my storyline (in which i also tried to accommodate him, rewriting some of his words and info). Also, i would like you to know i am not a vandal, as the anon user seems to imply in his message to you. I want you to know i think we, the well-intended users as me, yourself and apparently the anon guy, can work together as a team, i am not here to be a nuisance to anyone.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Jay

I have just seen the above message and really disagree with the contents. The objective here in this issue is to progress in a positive and respectful way and to appreciate everyones effort where editing is concerned. Most of the articles and references took forever to find as they date back to 2007 but I dig and dig to ensure everything is correctly referenced.I found every single one of them. So it hurts to see my effort get reverted/ vandalised in a nonchalant way really.

I respect the way you work Jay because you didnt just start randomly deleting my edits with no regard for all my effort, you carefully combed through it and updated it in a thoughtful and positive way and I appreciated it.

As i am an 'anon' user which I guess means amateur editor I always take positive advice on board and I adopted some of the editors comments from the above message and modified my edits. However I am struggling with his edits because they seem somewhat destructive and non constructive and he complains about my choice of words e.g 'plethora', but you had already kindly substituted that word. So why bring it up it again? I would have expected him to just work with your last edit.... and in any event, I was only quoting the source of the article in their exact words....

I do believe that we all make mistakes and all it needs is correction and not deleting.

Please let me know your thoughts Jay.

Best, Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.132.136 (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, in reply to both of you, I am sorry I have not been able to reply sooner; I just got back home after a transatlantic flight! There is no need to label anybody here as vandalising: I assure you both that vandals do not spend time meticulously cleaning up articles and trying fervently to reach a resolution. All of us should stay cool. There is no need to get worked up about things - so long as we keep level-headed, we can for sure cooperate and bring the article to its best. Both of you have good points. When I cleaned up the article, I merely gave it a quick sweep - I did not double check all the references, correct all the grammar: Wikipedia is always going to improve - my edits were just the foundations for more improvement. A great friend of mine, who is quite the expert on football, is coming over tonight for dinner so I'll have him take a look at it and we can work through it all together; no need to report anything or get worked up. In the end there is the absolute truth behind the article that I'm sure both of us can agree on after some work. Think of it this way: at least it is nice that we are all so concerned about the integrity of this encyclopaedia! Jay-Sebastos 15:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with JAY in the last paragraph of this exchange of words (we all are working for the same, that is to say the quality of the article. I apologise for my first words ("...we may have a problem with the anon editor in this player's article."), although i still say he continues to mix past, present and future tense in same sentence.

I have messaged the anon user (i did not revert him because he was anon, i reverted him because of the tense and grammar, and the REFS i reverted i have reinstated now, even though i think its quality is poor) offering my point of view. And now i am sure, seeing his last message, i was labeled a VANDAL just for trying to improve the article's quality! Not fair methinks...I also see he has reinstated his storyline, i have rephrased it again (but i also think edit wars are not "pretty"). He also said, in one of his last summaries, "GUYS why are you reverting his goals, they are referenced by BBC". Well, again i was dubbed a vandal, but it was not "GUYS", it was one "GUY" (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rabiu_Ibrahim&diff=416179647&oldid=416176073).

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that he was mistaken in this judgment. I do, however, think that it was an honest mistake rather than an act of malice. We all can feel fairly attached to articles and can get emotional when we think something is wrongly done. But let's not get angry; let's move swiftly on together! Jay-Sebastos 15:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I say guys because if you have a look Vasco you will see that another user had reverted rabius page again today. It is so annoying when this happens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.52.227 (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jay I have sent the msg below to Vasco and im currently awaiting his reply

Hello Vasco You have reverted my edits and I would like to understand why.

In Rabius Club career, Theres a grammatical error by you which I have corrected by you keep reverting it. Your edit currently says shortly after" interest generated" we changed this to shortly after he generated interest. I have also said that he made the time top 50 In Rabius international career I have said Ibrahim Rabiu appeared for the Nigeria U-17 and U-20 sides a total of 13 times, scoring six goals and creating many Can you pls explain to me why you disagree with this information Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.52.227 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Best, Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.52.227 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have replied Tony in his new IP address. Hope the good mood can continue, attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jay

I have replied Vascos message, I apologised for calling him a vandal and I think we understand each other a bit better now.

Thanks mate.

Tony92.29.52.227 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, in the article's REF#8 (per Tony's instruction i have altered it), the newspaper is the New Straits Times, but the player made a top list in The Times. I, the "vandal", have cooperated and corrected it. Cheers both! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * More "final" observations: in INT.CAREER, Tony removed valid stuff i added (link to ERITREA national team, a link to an AFRICAN U-17 championship, etc). Another: in CLUB CAREER, the bit about the player being sent on loan to Real Sport Clube is referenced (see REF#10), he also removed it. A bit odd i was accused of actions we both committed but, anyway, let bygones be bygones, happy editing and happi(er) week :) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Hope you have a great week too. Article is much improved.  Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss  18:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jay

Thanks for everything, I have made up with Vasco, we're mates now and he is not a Vandal it was just a misunderstanding/ heat of the moment thing... I reverted some of his edits as well but as he said bygones are bygones now.

All the best fella!

Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.52.227 (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cleanup JAY. I have, however, reinstated Mario Balotelli in the article, it was an undue removal. Why? Because, he, although Italian, is of African heritage, and HE IS referred to in the due part of article, see REF#6 closely. Happy week 'n stuff - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up; I agree. Article getting better by the day! Jay  Σεβαστός discuss  15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry external links to a textbook
Hi - I got a message from you re. my recent additions of external links to pages for 'thiamine pyrophosphate' and pyridoxal phosphate, saying that the links appear to be for commercial purposes. The links are to chemwiki, a relatively new open-access textbook project that is being developed at U. California-Davis, and to which I am a contributor (I have written a chemistry textbook and have made it available through chemwiki). I had intended to create a few links in appropriate places where wikipedia readers could get more in-depth information in a textbook-like environment if interested. Perhaps the issue is that there is a link, on the main textbook page, to a site at Lulu.com (a commercial POD publisher) where people can get a free pdf download of the textbook, and also, if they desire, purchase a printed version. I guess this is commercial in that Lulu.com makes some money if someone orders a printed copy, but there are no author royalties attached - I don't make a penny. I'll leave it to you whether you want to leave those links up - perhaps I could remove my links to the Lulu.com site, but then that takes away the ability for users to get a printed version. Just wanted to clarify. Thanks, Soderbt (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Perhaps the issue is that the main page for my textbook links to a site on Lulu.com, a (commercial) print-on-demand publisher.


 * Hi there Soderbt. The issue is that external links are only to be added if they contribute something extra to the article even if the article were a featured article. If the article were a featured article, I am very sure it would contain the information you are external linking. This being the case, you would need to put in the information at those external links into the article, and then cite the website in the references section instead. Hope this is clear. Thanks. Jay  Σεβαστός discuss  08:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jay - thanks, that makes sense. I teach organic and biological chemistry at a university, and I find that though my students usually go first to wikipedia for information, they often find the biochemistry articles confusing - this is mainly because lots of key information, and especially key figures, are missing (chemistry is VERY visual). I'll take a shot at improving the thiamine pyrophosphate article (being as concise as possible) and let you know on this talk page when it is up, I'd like to get your feedback on whether I'm writing and referencing in an appropriate way. Cheers, Soderbt (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

the possessed
Although this movie is not notable one but is about very unique case in the story of supernatural incidents in America.--93.174.95.98 (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you just admitted to it not being notable. Non-notable articles do not have place in Wikipedia. Anyhow, even if it were notable for being "a very unique case of supernatural incidents", this would have been covered significantly by reliable, independent, sources. If it has not been, it is either not that unique, or that uniqueness is not important enough for Wikipedia. Check out WP:N for more. Thanks. Jay  Σεβαστός discuss  17:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but it was my fault that i could not imply what i wanted to say.I wanted say that this documentary television movie is not as notable as other movie for example Saw series or The others Or constantine., but if you look at the cooments of the people who have watched this movie you could easily understand that this is interesting and notable movie in super natural movies category.--91.99.34.217 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to say what I said before. A subject is only notable if it has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not until this has been asserted is the article notable. Find the references to assert notability. Jay  Σεβαστός''' discuss  19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think again you could not understand what i am sating about this article.This movie is about a very unique incident in the paranormal incidents in America which is well documented both articles The possessed movie and Watseka Wonder are bonded togheter.you should consider that most of super natural movies are fictional but this one is based on facts is based on the psychologists statements.This movie is visionary and touchable type of unbelievable true story.

you should know that one of the goals of Wikipedia is introducing discovered and undiscovered objects.i do not understand why you do not perceive how much this articles are unique ans useful for the people who want to research about paranormal occurrences.--Navid1366 (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia. If an article is not noteworthy enough per the criteria of having significant, secondary source coverage about it, then it does not merit its own article per WP:N. Thanks Jay  Σεβαστός discuss  08:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability for schools
Thank you for your work in patrolling recent changes. I wanted to mention one issue, though. According to Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, most high schools and universities are considered notable. The csd-a7 tag should not be used for schools. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, the issue is that I didn't see it was a high school - articles that are about an elementary/primary school or middle school will normally be merged into the school district article they are associated with. Other schools apart from high schools are not inherently notable. Thanks for the heads-up.  Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  16:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Halyvourgiki S.A.
Hello Jay-Sebastos. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Halyvourgiki S.A., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK  16:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right. It's not entirely promotional. A lot of it is however: unsubstantiated claims such as one of the main steel producers in Greece and Its huge, brightly colored facilities have almost become a landmark of the Elefsina area. At any rate I think it fails WP:ORG so it's gone to AFD. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  17:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of APOS Systems Inc. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article APOS Systems Inc. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/APOS Systems Inc. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk Back : HTML5 in Mobile Devices
Hi Jay-Sebastos! I am currently working on the article and hope more and more contributors will join so as to make the article grow. HTML5 support for mobile devices seems to be a separate topic, because of the rapid growth of the devices that connect to the Internet.I believe that HTML5 design for Mobile Devices is different from designing for the web. The Article gives an overview of the mobile Web and the trends that are shaping to support HTML5 in mobile devices Canceo (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed
Hi. I see you've already tagged the Chris Petersen article I've just written disputing the neutrality. It's telling me to "see the discussion on the talk page", but you haven't stated any reason for why it doesn't seem neutral, in fact, the article is so new that the talk page hasn't even been created yet. If you could take a minute to let me know exactly what problems you seem to have with the page then I could remove or rewrite the offending sections to resolve the problem. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What gets me is this whole the things about him being a teen idol which permeates the entire article. This needs to be either reworded, referenced appropriately, both, or quite simply removed. Teen idol is a very strong phrase. Per WP:NPOV articles on Wikipedia must represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Currently it is not referenced. We should not extrapolate that he is a teen idol from sources which do not mention him being one. Thanks. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  12:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll take out the reference.  I'm aware of Wikipedia's policies about neutrality.  I used the phrase "teen idol" as a way to distinguish his career trajectory, where many child actors work in shows and/or films aimed at an adult audience, whether meant to be "precocious" or "adorable" (many of his younger brother's early roles for example), I was using "teen idol" as a short-hand way to say that at a certain point in his career, the majority of his roles were in productions targeting a teen and pre-teen audience (the ABC, CBS, and NBC Afterschool Specials for example).  Both he and his brother did also appear in numerous teen magazines during their careers; however, I didn't save magazines from 30 years ago to be able to cite them here, I was just assuming people from that generation would know that, and anyone who didn't, wouldn't find it controversial.  I'll rewrite the sections where I used the term "teen idol" (I actually only used it twice not the "entire" article) and let you know here when it's finished so you can take another look. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've removed any mention that he was ever a teen idol. Please take a look and let me know if there is anything else that needs to be rewritten. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. I've made a start on some more rewording. There were quite a few peacock terms such as numerous and child star in the earlier sections, and there a few later on too. In essence, they are without attribution, and just promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. Better to use facts and attribution to demonstrate his importance, such as listing and citing the names of the films he's been in, or saying a number of films, which is fact. Child star does not impart verifiable information either (nowhere have a seen anything that says he was a child star, and it would be better to just state pure facts like "he was voted young TV personality of the year in 1999" - if that were the case), and in fact I might even question the notability of his brother's article. There are a few other terms like that later on, as I already said. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  16:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've gone back in and removed any references to "child stars". I wasn't trying to inflate his importance, but I honestly think for many people (if not most people), the meanings of child actor and child star are interchangeable.  The same with the terms teen actor and teen idol.  It just hits the ear (or in this case, the eye) more comfortably to say "teen idol" than to say "teenage actor who was most notable to teenage audiences, appearing in numerous teen magazines read primarily by teenage readers, etc, etc.  After re-reading the article while I was re-editing it, the one thing I'll agree with is I used the word "popular" too many times.  Again, this wasn't a case of trying to "sell" his importance, but I try and give context as if the reader has never heard of Starsky and Hutch or The Incredible Hulk, and when a show was short-lived or a movie was considered a "flop" then I always try to note that as well.  It's just in the case of this particular actor, all of the television shows he appeared in were "popular" at the time, so I can see how, after the tenth time I used the term, it began to look like I was just trying to make him sound more popular.  I've now removed all references to the shows being "popular", except for the one reference to the ABC Afterschool Special, in order to provide context as to why the other networks began carbon copying the format.  As far as his younger brother Pat Petersen - I didn't write that stub, but he was, by far, more "notable" than his older brother, and is most definitely what I would consider to be a bona fide "teen idol" of his time (just search his name on ebay if you need to see the "numerous" pinups and articles of him from teen magazines).  I was planning on working on his page as well, but his career is considerably more extensive, and will take me quite a bit of time to put together, so I'm asking you to please not do anything to his page for now.  I'll start working on it as soon as I finish a few other things I'm currently working on and his notability should be apparent when I'm finished.  I didn't have any problems with your modifications to the Chris Petersen page, so if you see anything left that you think needs to be reworked then I'm asking you to please go ahead and make the changes, since I honestly would just be trying to read "tea-leaves" trying to decipher the differences between "numerous" and "various", etc. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the reply. I understand completely that you're not deliberately trying to inflate his importance - all I was saying that some of the wording implied this, whether inadvertently or not. I'll keep on top of it :) Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  19:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, if everything looks all right then I'll ask you to please remove the {neutrality} tag, since the average reader, who is not a Wikipedia editor, will most likely never take the time to read the entire neutrality policy, and will instead take the tag as an indication that there is something specious about the integrity of the article as a whole. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅  Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  18:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Southern Medical journal
SMJ is a medical journal indexed (Pubmed) and with impact factor, known throughout the world. What's the problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samdalmas (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I you're right on this one. I've done a notability check and it does seem to pick up quite a lot of coverage. Would be best to add some sources to assert notability. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Affected by autoblock

 * Thanks a bunch, Shell. This is not the first time it has happened. Recently, I believe the IT department switched ISP, so I presume that's why the previous block was negated. It's such a shame that the students have nothing better to do than vandalise the site. The College is one of the top UK institutes, and they would all have a lot to contribute with, and a lot to learn, were they to contribute constructively to the site. I'll have a word with our IT department tomorrow. All the best. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  11:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

re: Mr. Miller
No need to apologise! At first glance, he did look non-notable, but the main thing is that has been addressed.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I felt I needed to after being rightly called "ridiculous" by Dr. B! Do you think we should speedy keep and close the AFD discussion(s) as non-admin closures? Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  13:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Indeed intitially its easy to write him off as a not notable actor. I wasn't calling you ridiculous, rather the hundreds of times the names do appear in reliable sources!! But he does have biographical entries in some of the most reputable British cinema books, although not much biographical detail. But its his film credits alongside prominent actors and directors which will astound you and just how many times his name appears in books, literally hundreds of them. Its the sort of articles I think which wikipedia should have but most do a poor job of leaving them as short stubs which make them look non notable. I'm a big fan of the ITC productions TV series of the 60s and enjoy spotting the familiar faces who appear in different series even if you don't know their names. I recognized Miller from the Avengers and The Saint and a few others TV series and films and was clueless who he was. I think its valuable for viewers to be able to look the actors up in the credits and try to learn more about them on wikipedia. Regards.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, Dr. B. I can see exactly where you're coming from :these short stubs often not seeming notable when they are. Good thing we have diligent people like you! Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  14:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ironically though it is I who are blamed for most of the short stubs we have on wikipedia!!! If I had the time, energy and patience to write every single article as fully I would, but I think the workload needs to be shared!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it turns out he starred alongside actors like Dirk Bogarde, Paul Newman, Sal Mineo and David Niven to name just a few!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting... Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  15:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner! LOL the list grows, Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Louis Jourdan, Orson Welles....♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I'm feeling really bad... :-S Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  15:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rex Harrison, Julie Christie, Leslie Phillips, Robert Wagner, Ingrid Bergman, Shirley Maclaine and Omar Sharif!! He he!! Who'd have thought eh? His roles were not major but the sheer stature of the people he appeared alongside!! The fact that he appeared in the legendary original Pink Panther would make me proud!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with it now, hopefully one or two of the others can add some more like a tabled filmography and some more bio info if possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Good job
Just wanted to thank you for doing a good job in blocking all the various vandals at Aquinas Diocesan Grammar School, protecting the page, and cleaning it up. Wikipedia works because of people like yourself :-) Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  20:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That was indeed quite an intersting page to protect. I could have sworn i reverted it a load of times already, and still Huggle reported warning level of 1 and 2 on the users in question. Seems that an entire school class is having a very, very boring lesson today. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, yes indeed! Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  20:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

GAN
Thanks for contacting me. I looked over your review and it was very comprehensive for the brief article. I didn't see any areas that you were lacking in your review, and I'll be happy to take a look at any future reviews you perform (please send me a link when you do it, I unfortunately am working on too many things to watch other reviews). It's good to include the listing of the criteria as you did as it indicates to the nominator what areas need to be improved as well as provides a developed support review for any possible GARs. Keep up the good work and I hope you continue to take the time to review GANs, it can definitely be challenging at times. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review of my review, and for the minor, but useful changes you also made to the article itself. I will certainly contact you again when I've gone over another article and passed a verdict. Thanks again for the guidance. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Appeasement
Thanks for your interest. Your help would be welcome. I'm not sure how much more I can contribute because I am not up to date with the latest literature, and one of the things that it needs for FA status is more recent references. And I have to admit I haven't read "Origins of the Second World War", so I'm not sure if the summary of Taylor's position is accurate. Anyway, that was published 50 years ago, so you can see how much catching up I have to do. Let me know if I can be of any help. Marshall46 (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your speedy reply, Marshall46. I wouldn't worry about not having read the whole of Taylor; the important thing is that you've got a copy to hand. The same could probably be said for the other literature. There's no need to read the whole thing - skim reading is usually adequate. If it's a question of not having access to the sources themselves, then I'd be more than happy to email you some scans of some of the most important excepts. I myself have got quite a wealth of books relating to the subject at my disposal. I am sure we can work together on it - maybe tackle different sections each or something? One of the main things to establish first, of course, is the issue of what titles to pick. My feeling is that Appeasement itself is too generic a title. I think it might be wise to split the article into different smaller articles with summaries of those articles on the main Appeasement page. What's your view on that? The only problem at the moment, is that the article only really features the Appeasement of Nazi Germany, and so the article about Appeasement itself might be left rather sparse. I suppose we could turn it into a DAB, or a list? Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  13:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am willing to help if I can.


 * I am not sure that the article would improve if it became an article about appeasement in general. That's what it was at one time, and it was a very bad article then.  As a historical concept, appeasement does mean appeasement of the dictators in the 1930s, and all the academic literature is about that period.  The concept is applied only loosely to other periods, as described in a paragraph at the end of the article, and then always in reference to Hitler.  If you introduced other appeasements, you would end up with a lot of avoidable controversy.


 * E.g., suppose you tried to expand on Anthony Eden's fear of appeasing Nasser and said that there was a period in which western nations appeased the Arab states. You could make a reasonable case.  It has sometimes been said that Britain's administration of the Palestine Mandate involved the same sort of appeasement of the Arabs as it was using in Europe.  But that is not a major topic in history, it would require too much synthesis and would result in the article being ripped apart by people who fiercely disagreed.  The same thing would happen if you introduced the IRA, the Falklands or the Balkans.


 * Since the historical narratives draw a direct line from Manchuria to Munich, I'm not sure that it would be good to split the article. The article is, anyway, a summary already, and the reader is referred to longer article about each phase of appeasement.


 * The page has a lot of visitors, which indicates that it is seen as a useful article as it is. In summary, I think it needs to be tinkered at to make it better and to incorporate modern views, but not to be radically altered. Marshall46 (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:James Suckling in Blood into Wine.tiff
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:James Suckling in Blood into Wine.tiff. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:James Suckling in Blood into Wine.tiff
 Thanks for uploading File:James Suckling in Blood into Wine.tiff. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Indian fishermen
It's obviously a cut-and paste, and therefore probably a copyright infringement. In this sort of situation, where the original source may be difficult to find, I tend to delete as OR if there is no obvious SD criterion (notability?). Although not strictly a CSD, there's no usually any comeback, and if there is I'll restore or try to find the source <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  11:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nanjing Salted Duck
I think you were rather hasty to delete so much of the content so early in the article's history. I've replaced the comprehensible parts of the original editor's version, liberally peppered with cn, to give them a chance to see how Wikipedia works - and left them a talk page note pointing out that they need to give sources. This wasn't controversial BLP stuff which has to be deleted on sight if not supported by references, and it's not usual to remove content instantly like this. Rather WP:BITEy, too - doesn't fit in with your declaration about "welcoming new users and giving them a first helping hand". (I just came across the article while stub-sorting, and when a stub is very short I usually have a quick look at the history in case it's been vandalised or is otherwise more thanmeets the eye.) Pam  D  13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Pam. On looking back at my edits, I have to admit that I was a little sloppy. As you can see from this revision, I firstly made sure to establish notability of the topic, and was able to locate some mentions in a few books, which I readily added to the article as references. I then rewrote the first sentence. I did things in a rush, and for some reason I did take out the "1000 years ago" bit, instead of adding a citation needed tag, which was a mistake. I took out the opinion of how the duck would taste per WP:NPOV, and was unable to understand the "origin" section so deleted it, which was probably a bit unfair since I chose to put a tag instead on "Salted duck is the drinks to share" which I also couldn't work out. I removed "There are two main reasons why the salted duck is delicious: 1. The weather is benefit for ducks to grow up healthily and 2. There is a long history in Nanjing rearing ducks" because it sounds very much like original research. I can't see any reliable published source claiming that ducks will taste good just because the weather is good and there is a significant history of raising ducks. It's all very well to change it round to "popularity" instead of "delicious" but to be fair, that's not what the editor wrote, and to change it to popularity would be me making something up. I added citation tags "The number of ducks sold in Nanjing is much bigger than chickens" which sounded credible, but deleted "80,000 ducks per day" because I honestly cannot imagine how somebody could possibly compile such a statistic together.  I think we both agree on the recipe section, and I was intending on incorporating something about it into the article. I left a very courteous message on his talk page, thanking him for his contribution, and suggesting that he could contact me. A little after an hour, I removed the information which had not yet been cited since anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed and I am yet to come across any guideline which prescribes a specific time to leave unsourced and challenged information for. Yes, I may have made two small mistakes, but I don't really like being accused of hostility or lying. I left a kind message on the user's talk page, and gave most of the information time to be sourced. Maybe you believe that more time should have been permitted, but as far as I am aware matter of opinion, not of policy.  Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  14:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You "gave most of the information time to be sourced"? One hour? When the new editor who had created it had not made any more edits so was not likely to be logged in and seeing the messaqes? Do you really think that is reasonable? Not controversial, not BLP - give it a chance.  Pam  D  18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave it one hour to see if the user was around or not in the first place, or would be returning in the immediate future. Seeing that the user was evidently not around, I deleted the information because it was quite possibly compromising the article at that time, and who knows how long it will continue to do so if we leave it that way? (Incidentally, the user has not yet returned to make any additions) If the user really were prepared to find references (which - I always maintain a policy of looking for references first before I add citation tags or take out information - has proved a difficult task so far), then I'm sure that he or she would also be prepared to click the "view history" button and copy and restore the previous version, or at least reply to the message I left on the user's talk page to say that he had found suitable sources: I pointed him in the right direction, and I'm very sure that most people would be able to work it out fairly easily if they were interested (or at least ask a question - the user clearly knew how to edit pages, so at the very least he could have left a request somewhere there). It does seem rather harsh to accuse me of hostility when the above actions are easily defendable, and so were never meant as any form of attack, and when I specifically left a kind message on the user's talk page to clarify (if the user really were to take offence) that I was editing merely to help and was happy that he or she was contributing in the first place. Pam, I am very happy (and I mean happy, because being bold and learning from successes and mistakes is really the best way to improve your Wiki skills!) to concede that I made a few editorial mistakes, but I would appreciate if you were to retract your statement about "WP:BITEy" since it was clearly not meant that way - this is all rather a difference in valid opinions of two editors - and since measures were undertaken so that misunderstandings did not arise. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  20:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not have been meant that way, and it was done civilly (so, OK, probably doesn't come within the description at WP:BITE), but to reduce a new editor's first article to 10 words, within an hour, on the basis of lack of references, seems to offer a very poor welcome to editing. Would you continue editing if it had happened to your first edit?  ("Look, I put all this effort into writing an article and someone has deleted almost all of it within an hour"). Your note on their talk page talks about adding tags etc, but the version you left had no maintenance tags, which may confuse them still further. As you felt the unsourced information was "quite possibly compromising the article at that time" you could have tagged it with cn - and I'm sure if you click on "Random article" you can find many, many, much more longstanding articles "compromised" much more seriously by unsourced information.  By all means give warnings, but please don't so nearly obliterate a new editor's first, good faith, article (or indeed any new good faith article) so swiftly.  Pam  D  21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, assuming that the inter-wiki link is accurate, there seems to be quite a lot to say, with 7 references, about this dish, and that article has an edit history going back to 2005! Pam  D  21:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the thing about WP:BITE back. I am never out there to intentionally harm users or content, though I do make mistakes :). I gave the new editor what I consider a kind welcome, "Hi there. Firstly, thank you for you new article, Salted duck. People like you really do make a difference... If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks." It actually struck me as particularly welcoming - a lot of the time I feel like these welcome templates really don't do the job since they are often quite impersonal. As I pointed out before, if he or she were diligent enough in the first place to go out and find references and insert them using wiki software, then I'm sure he or she would have also clicked on the links I provided for him and read at least the first introductory paragraphs; the one from WP:V states: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." Because of the warm-hearted message I left the user, and because he or she would have now known the basic outlines of the relevant policy, and because I had said I had added the tags because "the statements [were] not attributed to reliable sources" which itself I linked to WP:V, I am fairly confident that the user would have worked out why the information had been deleted. Perhaps I should have left another message on the user's talk page to make this even more clear. Instead I chose to leave the message "del history since no references have been found per WP:VERIFY" in the edit history (By this point, if the editor really were keen to find references and put them in appropriately, then I think they could have also worked out what the history button meant - after all, the only proviso that the information should not be deleted and rather left for a while so that sources might be found has always been that the editor could find the sources himself: I tried my best to find sources regarding the information, and I doubt that suddenly other experts on Nanjing Salted Duck would suddenly surface after years of delaying to write the article). I did tag the article at the time with cn tags, but, as we have already established, I chose to remove them and the information they questioned on a matter of a valid opinion, one which we do not share but is not contradicted by policy. And it seems to me that your other reason beside the "not welcoming" one for me having deleted the information too early is a simple argumentum ad populum: just because many articles have this quality of long-standing citation tags, doesn't mean that it is a good or acceptable thing; if I had the time and a throng of cooperating wikipedia editors, then I would have them go through every single article with cn templates and have them try and look for supporting references as best they could - and, if the templates really had been there a long time, and a reasonable amount of effort had been made to found them, then I think it would be more than fair to have the information removed. The point is that I had tried my best to find evidence for the information asserted (as you can see from the citations that I added to the article), but had failed. I apologise for any errors of communication, but do not feel obliged to apologise for the principle of my actions because I believe it would not disparage a user but do its part in preventing the encyclopaedia from becoming a collection of unverified and quite possibly fallacious information. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  18:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As a linguist and a fairly proficient Chinese speaker, I can safely say that the inter-wiki link is accurate. Certainly the topic seems to be one that should be included on the English Wikipedia on grounds of notability, as I have always felt about the article. However, I can confirm that most of article, the section labelled "制作工艺", is purely a recipe - not dissimilar to the one which was earlier removed from the article; none of "Duck is a speciality of the Nanjing area because the climate is well suited to ducks, and more ducks are sold there than chickens: about 80,000 ducks per day. Now the salted duck has developed into a variety of duck products, such as duck gizzard, duck kidney, duck heart and duck liver" or "Traditionally, a bowl of boiled salted duck would be bought on the street for family celebrations or by visitors" is mentioned; "It has a history going back one thousand years" is mentioned and sourced but the source is unclear because only the author is mentioned, and not the title of the book (and it is not mentioned before either); and the rest of the article comprises largely of information that we both previously agreed to delete such as opinions failing WP:NPOV. I do not doubt there is much that can be added to this article, but I do not think that the information on the Chinese Wikipedia is particularly helpful to us at the moment, and the fact that it has been around since 2005 is not particularly relevant - it does not make any of the information more useful to us or validate the claims of the new user. I am sorry to be so verbose - when I write quickly and in a rush, I do tend to right like this! As Mark Twain said, "I didn't have time to write a short letter". Hopefully this clears things up and we can both get back to helping Wikipedia to be a better place rather than arguing :).  Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  18:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I might also add that now is perhaps the time to remove the information, especially after the confirmation of the Chinese Wikipedia article. So that no more arguments arise though, I'm happy to wait a while until you give your consent. We will of course this time leave an extra message on the user's talk page and point out that he or she is more than permitted to restore the information if reliable sources are discovered. This might also be of interest: . Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  18:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Print Council of America
Hello Jay, I am wondering if you could take another look at Print Council of America. I've added quite a few independent references that give significant coverage to the group, and trimmed the references to their own website to just one describing their goals. I've also added a bit more content about what they do and why they're notable. Your comments would be appreciated.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

James Suckling
I am currently doing two other GA nominations right now, however I can do that if you wish. Before I delve into it could you do a stylistic proof read? I am going to leave a list of things about the article I have found on the GA discussion page that you should really do before I get into the thing whole hog. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for agreeing to review the article, Jeremy. I am travelling at the moment but will be able to do a proof read later this evening. Thanks again. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  16:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I really liked your comment on the GA. Despite having been turned down, you still maintained your cool. I particularly liked your pledge to contribute - very few Wikipedians say that, let alone even put their words to action. Good work and keep it up!
 * P.S. I would give you a barnstar but I don't know how to. Perhaps next time I'll consult WC:DUB. Gimmy Wails (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:35.8.239.48
User:35.8.239.48 is assigned (or appears to be assigned) to Michigan State University. You might want to make a note of that somehow; the mix of edits from this IP address will be rather varied. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Iain McGilchrist
Hi Jay, the bio sounds like a very good idea. Have left a reply on my talk page. Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  14:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You've made a great start!  Esowteric + Talk  15:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Have replied on your talkpage. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your false accusation of vandalism
You have accused me of vandalism. Have you actually checked the edit in question? If you had you would see that it is clearly not vandalism. 75.14.219.203 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I have replied on your talk page. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  20:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

changes for Dick Rutkowski
Jay -- I understand the comment about citing --- but you wiped out the new picture that Dick specifically wanted on his page! I do his website support also. What do I need to do to update his page? DJ DeMell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddemell (talk • contribs) 21:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there "DJ DeMell". The issue I had was with the uncited information. There's nothing wrong with changing the image, so feel free to change it back. It was undone because my edit revert undid the photo change as well. Just taking a quick look at the article though, I do see that there is quite a substantial problem of lack of third-party citations. Articles regarding living people in particular need multiple sources to back up all their various claims (see WP:BLP for more details). If you could add a few reliable sources to the article to support any claims then that would be great. If not, you run the risk of much of the information being deleted. Regarding the link to his website: such a link would be fine but only in an External Links section or as a direct citation for something which is said in the article; in which case it would go in the References section. You can see the article on it - WP:CITE - for more details on the technicalities of it. Also, you should be aware of the WP:COI policy since you are of a close relationship to the subject. Thanks for your contributions, and do ask me if you have any further questions :-) (though I am not going to be around till tomorrow). Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  21:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

StAcEe JaXx
Let the article be deleted.--Napsync (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The result of its recent afd was redirect. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  13:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

How to mention short openings shown on Australian TV
I have a question regarding about how to prove things have been done on TV. Since shows that have been aired on screen cannot be used as resources, because there's no link and using videos like youtube is considered to breach this, is there anyway to provide this information? Reality TV has been cutting corners recently in Australia where they used to show the whole opening. Lately for shows like X Factor and Australia's Got Talent, they simply display the title. It is like removing music that viewers can remember and they'll eventually forget about them completely. Can you please provide suggestions that can be done in order for readers to be aware of this? Thank you. 115.64.53.181 (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Firstly, I would like to thank you for helping to contribute to Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, its purpose is to provide a sum of human knowledge as identified through the use of published, secondary sources. Thus one of its core concepts is verifiability rather than truth. What I would say then, is that while it may be true that this has happened on Australian X Factor, if it is not verifiable, i.e. attributable to a secondary source, then it shouldn't be included. It could perhaps be inferred from a primary source (like a youtube video), but then this would be original research. I've taken a look for sources about what you rightly pointed out (I checked newspapers etc), but I couldn't find anything. My bet for now, unless you can find anything about it from somewhere which fits WP:RS, would be to leave it out for the time being. Hopefully this made sense, and do ask me if you have any further queries. Thanks again. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  10:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have some videos that are of the short opening used in the X Factor series 3. The first episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCVUdhSsXQ at the 2:03 mark, the second episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sl_DOIwYY_Q at the 1:30 mark, and the third episode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je_-A2UboY0 at the 1:37 mark are samples of these. These videos are actual episodes that have been recorded from television. I hope these sources can be used to show that its true, but it may be considered secondary source since it was recorded from television. I also would like to request that the Australia's Got Talent series 6 also does a similar thing and since the show is airing and the official website has episodes available for viewers to watch that it can be proven from a direct main source (in this case through their official website). Originally, that opening can be seen in this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHLg6BJmJJo. In addition, since the Australia's Got Talent episodes are available for a couple of days, it won't be possible for them to be there forever. I hope this can be considered reliable resources through original research. Please let me know if I've made any mistakes in regards to what I've shown here. Thank you. 115.64.53.181 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Unfortunately all of those clips from television are still primary sources. Just like you said, inference from those would be original research which is not permitted. It really needs to have been mentioned in a secondary source - e.g. a newspaper - otherwise it's not going towards making an encyclopedia, but new synthesis. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any further questions. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  09:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

AGF
When a new editor attempts to communicate the source of their edit I would consider that a Good reason to assume they are not a vandal and are in need of a little guidance please review WP:BITE. Jeepday (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) I see your edit on their talk page while I was writing the one above to you. Jeepday (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. What I probably should have done was to have used the adding uncited content message level 1 instead of the vandalism level 1. That was more a question of pressing the wrong button than anything else! That would have addressed the problem, and if anything else had happened, then I was ready to give a more detailed justification of twitter as a source etc. Instead, after vandal 1 (thinking I had done uncited 1), I then moved to uncited 2 since I had added an explanation in my revert (but it was already 3 by this point because of somebody else's warning!!), and finally attempted to give a more detailed explanation before moving to 3 (which by mistake I had already done!!!). Anyhow, long story aside and a silly finger pressing the wrong button (!), the user has very kindly agreed to revert the edits without further discussion. Best. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  12:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * :) Jeepday (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! You deserve one too of course ;-). Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  15:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/Jay-Sebastos

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Genital warts. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.Hydra Rain (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My edit
DBA is a common phrase we use in the air force so I don't see why you would delete it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.80.4.2 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can verify it, then feel free to put it back in. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  02:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

look it up on the urban dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.80.4.2 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The urban dictionary is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it. To find out more see WP:RS. Thanks. Jay  <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  02:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!
Hi, I think you are overzealous in your content removal. I'd replied on the Tommy McHugh page. Please do reply. me. you can reach me at pekcheey@gmail.com as well.

Haaaa (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!
Hi, I think you are overzealous in your content removal. I'd replied on the Tommy McHugh page. Please do reply. me. you can reach me at pekcheey@gmail.com as well.

Haaaa (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Iyokate mato
Ah, thanks for the link. When I saw "Leader of the Red Dead Redemption Sioux clan" I assumed a clan in the game composed of NPCs, not a clan of real-world players. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no worries! I thought that too at first but then a quick Google search turned up otherwise. -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  16:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

sorry wont happen again.....
sorry about that. I just saw that it has no citation or proof of that. I was also reading the books that are sited on there, and a lot say the jews, did not just start to be persecuted in the first crusade. But right after the death of Christ for many reasons. I would hope you know yourself I will not get into all that with you, so keep it worded that way. I am sure it will just confuses jews and Catholics alike. Was there a Hitler back then who was starting the first holocaust. I mean drop the game and lets get facts out there to the public man!!! NOT ACCUSATIONS !!!!! so no Pagans died either just jews according to you ?!

JuddiKrishnamurti (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * Cute kitty! The article is about the German persecution of Jews, and that section is about times more than 1000 years after Christ. So if there is anything relevant to Germany and the Jewish population at that time (which I doubt), then I would suggest rewriting it in a new section, but remembering to cite your sources. -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  17:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your Awesome good point and I will stick to reading the pages unless I see a real mistake that I can fix or a reference that's missing! I was just testing you wont happen again lol JuddiKrishnamurti (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Han Solo
Listen, buddy. I don't know what the deal is, but that was not vandalism. I thought that because that Katie Leigh voiced Han in the Lego Star Wars: The Padawan Menace, I assumed it was a young Han. --MaxamillionSmart (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and apologies for that. When patrolling recent changes one has to make fast decisions and given your recent history of vandalism, it seemed like quite likely vandalism at the time -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  17:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All is forgiven. Hey, at least I'm not replacing images with porn. --MaxamillionSmart (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

King of Canada
You messaged me saying I did the vandalism when I was actually the one who removed it.

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada somebody had listed that King Tyler was the King of Canada.

There is no King of Canada. I removed these entries for you, I did not add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.233.170 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies about that. Yes, I thought it was you who added them. Thanks for the good edit! -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  04:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Monty Norman
Monty Norman was born Monty Noserovitch, so I fixed a mistake on that infobox.

Anonymous173.57.40.137 (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that. Corrected now. -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  06:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Priceminister
hey jay hello... I m the guy who changed the price minister page with the information about their spammin habit. I m surprise you find it not constructive. have a quick search on google with "price minister spam" and see how many people complain about the same fact: once they know your email there is no way to stop them sending unsollicited email.

If you removed my change knowingly, this actually put you in the side of spammer.

Sorry to send you this message in this page but i did not find a "contact me button" on this page where you invited to me to send a feedback.

Now, how can you thing the information about price minister spamming habit could be put in their web page in a constructive way ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.210.245 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for the message. If you would like to add information about them spamming, then you must cite a number of independent sources, and it's also important that you present the information in a neutral way, so as not to present your own opinion but the opinion of others. Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards. -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  06:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, i understand how this page works now..Still a bit lost with the wiki syntax.. Anyway, i changed the priceminister page with a style that i try to be more neutral (it s a bit difficult to be neutral as right now, i m really angry at them :-) feel free to rephrase it more gently if you find the correct wording). I also put several url of people in forum or blog that complain or comment about their difficulty opting out from the price minister mailing lists. Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.231.210.245 (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Comedy Central Roast
Hello, I have recently received a message from you regarding my additions to the page for Comedy Central Roasts more specifically the Roast of Justin Bieber. I would like to say that unfortunately I am unable too provide a reliable source besides the fact that I watched both the pre-show and the roast itself twice and saw those people in the audience and the Gray Carpet. As well as I actually do not currently have the knowledge of the way to add a citation. I would also care to point out that if someone were to closer examine the page they would note that the rest of the roasts also lack citations and they're still up. With that said I would like to pose the following question. Why was my edit removed due to citation lack while the rest were not removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.181 (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason is because in your edit your mention Justin Bieber's monkey appearing, which to me sounded unlikely. So if it's true, please add a source. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, and you must "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Thanks. -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  06:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

How do I do an inline citation?

http://www.mtv.com/news/2105841/inside-justin-bieber-comedy-central-roast/
 * Here's a tutorial: . The reason I questioned it is that I thought Justin Bieber's monkey had been impounded... His escapades endure...! -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  07:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Relief India Trust
Hello Jay, Regarding the continuous deletion of the Criticism of Relief_India_Trust using the loophole of no reliable reference, How could a user provide evidence like message log or previous correspondence and/or a screen grab that could be refereed to the point of criticism.

I posted some additional issue of this article's external source of reference on Talk:Relief_India_Trust — Preceding unsigned comment added by DChinu (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing the page of Abdulrahim Abby Farah.
I don't need a citation as i am his grandson and when I edited it I was currently with him. I don't know how i can prove it but if you give me options I will glady do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.167.29 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The only way you can prove it, is by citing a reliable source to verify these claims. Let me know if you need anymore help. Cheers. -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  16:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Rob
Hi Jay how can I add some genuine content to your page please? I am new to Wikipedia

Regards

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobAsbestos (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rob, I'm not sure I understand? What do you need help in editing? Regards, -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  17:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ta for the welcome template
I'm well acquainted with the 'pedia though. --78.150.168.248 (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, well let me know if you do need any help! -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  11:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

David Coburn article
you should stop reverting now so you don't break 3RR and make things messy. Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is pretty clear-cut and 3RR doesn't apply to unsourced additions to BLPs (see WP:3RRBLP). But thanks for the heads-up, as I certainly don't want to be implicated in this. -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  13:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

BattleToads
Battletoads has become famous for the gamestop prank calls what is wrong with my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.148.31 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Russ martin show
Hi Jay. 1 do you even listen to russ martin. 2 if you do or don't who gives you the rite to fix something a fan adds to HIS ( RUSS MARTIN) page. I suggest replacing what we put — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craizie cracker (talk • contribs) 05:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Unfortunately, you do need to understand that it's not your article or my article. I suggest you take a look at WP:OWNER. Wikipedia is run by the consensus of the community which is at the foundation of Wikipedia's policies. Moreover, Wikipedia is not based on whether you listen to a particular song/watch a particular movie/or are in some way acquainted with a particular subject. Wikipedia is base on verifiability. I would be happy for you to add back in the content I deleted, but we need to find a reliable source to backup any claims. This is especially important when matters concern biographies of living persons, as Wikipedia has very stringent criteria in this regard. I would strongly advise you not to add in this material until can provide such a source, as continuously reverting other people's changes without first discussing and rectifying the problems can be deemed edit warring and sanctions can be applied. Do let me know if you need any further help. Best regards, -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC).... unfortunately you do have to Listen because if you did you will get all the proof you need to back up any posting or changes that we may make to his Page you can find this proof at Russmartin.fm

russ martin show
ayfortunately Jay you need to listen to the Russ Martin show to get any proof you may need so like I said before replace everything you deleted and leave it alone unless the owner which is Russ Martin complain you can also get any proof from russmartin.fm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craizie cracker (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there again. I'm afraid the only way you can "prove" your assertions, according to Wikipedia's definition, is by attributing them to reliable sources. If it is simply mentioned in a show, I'm afraid as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that does not suffice. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopaedia and so merely a summary of secondary sources, not of primary sources. I suggest you also consult WP:OR. Best regards, -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  07:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia
I was a University Lecturer for 15 years, I have published many books - I have to fight to publish them. I have to justify what I say - not just some website that agrees with me. What right, qualifications, do these Wikipedia editors/reverters have to control? I do not say that you are doing this; but I have to ask: what qualifications do you have in your/any field? In mine I have a PhD (from a real university) - I cannot edit an academic article by someone else. You are all fantasists, mostly with a right-wing agenda.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.200.248 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Thanks for your message. I do not doubt your expertise in your field but unfortunately Wikipedia is not based on expertise. Wikipedia is based on verifiability. That's because it's the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, not just experts. Moreover, Wikipedia is not the place for original research – it is an encyclopaedia. In other words any information needs to be sourced to published, secondary sources. Of course, this has its drawbacks, but it has also has huge positives – consider that Wikipedia is the 5th (or 4th – can't remember) most popular site on the net. Then compare it with parallel project Citizendium, which stresses academic credentials; it's ranked 286,796. Anyhow, here is not the place to be debating the philosophy of Wikipedia (although it's certainly an interesting debate!) – Wikipedia has already clearly defined its policies. Regarding the article referring to Google Translate, I am going to undo your last change because it did not cite verifiable secondary sources, in keeping with the aforementioned policy. As you accept, encyclopaedias need to be well sourced, which is why I am deleting the information. Again, providing original research on Wikipedia specifically does not count as citing a reliable source. Hope this clears some things up for you! -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  13:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker (politician)
Why? -- vandalism. Yours, Quis separabit?  15:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question? Thanks for clarifying. I think my initial thoughts were "Oh, somebody removing positive content about a politician with an IP address registered to the US army". I briefly check out the sources and they looked legit. Probably it could do with some improvement, though I don't think it justifies the IP simply to blank. Not familiar with the source NPR, and some assertions are made as fact when they are just quotations of what the politician said. What are your thoughts? All the best, -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC) :-)
 * The Walker article is a magnet for vandalism, usually by his enemies. My general opinion is that when an IP editor removes sourced text for no reason, and usually even if there is an ostensible reason/edit summary, I check into it. In this case, and I'm sorry if my terse phrasing was a little disconcerting, I was just pointing out that this is a clear case of vandalism. One cannot always assume good faith. Yours, Quis separabit?  16:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, one cannot. However, I'm not familiar with the article history in question, which is why I could only assume good faith at the time. All the best, -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  16:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

2012 NCAA Sanctions
ElKevbo is a bully and isn't a good editor. He's very biased, especially against HBCUs. I've already tried several times to reason with him. He's adamant about continuing his shady editing practices. And we had conflict before that I let go so I've shown I'm able to collaborate but him adding the NCAA sanctions I will not stand for because he's wrong 100%. I left a message on the blocking board, please refer to it. Broadmoor (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Broadmoor, I've replied at the noticeboard. It was wrong of him suddenly to announce you would get blocked and not engage in discussion, but you yourself now need to engage. You need to explain why you feel he is "100% wrong". Is it because the sources aren't reliable, is it because you don't feel it conforms to a neutral point of view in that the way it is presented does not consider the other side of the story? However, talking about ElKevbo himself is something quite different and not permitted on Wikipedia. Moreover, I doubt he is "100% wrong". Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you need to come to a compromise. All the best, -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  01:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I spoke on my experiences and observations of ElKevbo ... I have never resorted to inane name calling or lied on him (if I did please point that out). There's other edits he's done that make no sense to any sensible person bottom line. For example, on the Arlington, Texas page in the demographic section I deleted a line that stated "In 2000, 10% of the foreign born population was Vietnamese" because for one that's not a notable fact, the Vietnamese population was counted in the Asian percentage, and it's outdated (there's been a census since then).  He reverted the line I cleaned up. And I already explained the problem in detail and yes he's wrong.  In the last conflict with him he said I was 100% wrong (even though I disagreed) and I let it go because it wasn't that serious and didn't jeopardize the integrity of the page much.  But this issue does and I'm standing my ground. I appreciate your support but I've done everything you're asking me to do.  The issue lies with ElKevbo and his entitlement and him changing the narrative to make it seem like I'm an arbitrary disruptive editor (a rebel without a cause).  He wants me to comply just because he says so, he's not following past wiki practices and being unbiased in his editing. Broadmoor (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Broadmoor. I think the admin made a good call protecting the page. I agree that you may well have a point, so you should now take things to the talk page and begin engaging in reasoned discussion. The point is whether adding in the controversy is conforming to a neutral point of view or not. Have a look at WP:WEIGHT for an idea. Please start taking your line of inquiry this way and concentrating on the article and policy (rather than pointing it at the individual and other articles), and I'm sure you can resolve this! Best regards, -- Jay <sub style="color:#008999;">Σεβαστός <sup style="color:#E3A857;">discuss  04:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)